Legal Opinion

Bradford v. Sisolak

District Court, D. Nevada

Decided May 14, 2021No. 2:20-cv-00871Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 Julius Bradford, Case No. 2:20-cv-00871-APG-BNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 Steve Sisolak, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pro se plaintiff Julius Bradford brings a complaint under

42 U.S.C. § 1983

against several 14 government officials. ECF No. 15. Bradford does not proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). ECF 15 No. 7. But the Court must screen his complaint because he is an incarcerated litigant who seeks 16 redress from a government officer, employee, or entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 17 Bradford's complaint primarily takes aim…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  4. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
  5. Spokeo, Inc. v. RobinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2016

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API